[x3d-public] Purpose of X3D

Joe D Williams joedwil at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 13 13:03:03 PDT 2016


Hi Yves,
And also, please note that any X3D reasonable suggestion against part 
of all of a standard can be made using web3d.org Spec Comments. This 
path opens the door for non-member community-based suggestions.

These are responded to immediately so you know the item has been input 
to the process. This may immediately initiate Mantis-style bug 
tracking and is always looked at by a working group where the input 
will be considered. The originator may be invited to show something to 
the group. If it is an item that should advance, then a Mantis issue 
and proposed actions are set. It may get some immediate attention from 
a working group, or at minimum it must be discussed at the next 
editors meeting that considers changes to the targeted standard.

This gives everyone concerned, X3D toolmakers and users, a chance to 
get on board and contribute to an orderly introduction of extended and 
new capabilities.

Thanks and Best,
Joe


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
To: "Yves Piguet" <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
Cc: "X3D Public" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D


> Hi Yves,
>
> The folloning document describes how interested parties can submit 
> any techology contributions to the Web3D Consortium for review and 
> potential support of the Web3D Consortium standards-development 
> process.
>
> http://www.web3d.org/standards/submission-policy
>
> not very clear from my description but very methodical and reliable 
> steps to get standards-class keystrokes and art into the spec. .
> Ideally make contact with a working group with enough documentation 
> and examples to evaluate. Maybe use the web3d wiki, Complete 
> assistance from the consortium to support the standards-track 
> process is available if needed. Otherwise, if benchmarks are met in 
> a convincing way with adoption support from other X3D 
> implementations, you can probably control it all yourself.
>
> Thanks and Best,
> Joe
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Yves Piguet" <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
> Cc: "X3D Public" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 2:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D
>
>
> Thanks. Not very clear, imo, but in itself that's also a part of the 
> answer. The obvious conclusion is that I shouldn't bother.
>
> Best,
>
> Yves
>
> On 7 oct. 2016, at 22:36, Joe D Williams wrote:
>
>>> What's the feeling of people involved with X3D ISO 
>>> standardization?
>>
>> total Joy. Realtime interactive event-driven 3D everywhere on the 
>> WWW.
>> Lots of stuff is moving and deeper application areas and more 
>> complete
>> implementations of X3D are added daily.
>>
>> Well, by the definition I gave, X3DOM is a candidate 
>> implementation,
>> as are several others. Currently the X3D WG is contemplating the
>> candidates and the issues and figure out how to and what to define 
>> in
>> the final Web3D X3D ISOetc, and W3C submissions. Or, I should say
>> initial CD submission. As far as I know the X3D wg has daily 
>> responsibility for Working Draft and is probably early in the 
>> Working Draft stage.  X3D may have what might be
>> considered lots of source material to serve as elements of Working 
>> Draft inputs with multiple independent free and open 
>> implementations.
>>
>> Right now to me there seems to be highly dependent use of 
>> javascript libraries and as we all know from past, sooner of later 
>> we will want some good stuffs that X3D needs for performance built 
>> directly into the host html browser. We got a big bag of that in 
>> Webgl:), SVG and CSS, not to mention the greatly superior 
>> ecmascript engines and implementations, and other html web browser 
>> security and other feature support improvements
>>
>> For example, we don't want to have to depend upon html script and 
>> DOM
>> to compute several interpolators, but instead have the compute code 
>> native to
>> the html browser. I think this follows the idea of the way Webgl is
>> now 'native' to the html web browser. Further along, how important 
>> is
>> it to preserve the idea of timestamps and event cascade of X3D, or 
>> can
>> we devise an ordered event system suitable for realistic hifi 
>> realtime
>> simulations from features of the DOM, or do we really need 
>> something more from the
>> (X)HTML DOM? And, of course we want a very straightforward lossless
>> transformation from what we have now to what can runs inside <x3d> 
>> ...
>> </x3d>.
>>
>>> My next question would be about the kinds of "proposals" I've made 
>>> ...
>>
>> Technically, most likely nobody will push proposals forward except 
>> you. If what you have could be aimed at a specifiic working group 
>> like CAD, HAnim, Medical, Geo then aim at that group. Join the list 
>> and figure out how to find application interest, then show your 
>> stuff. If this is something X3D can use, then your wg will push to 
>> X3D wg and Bod and start a project. Excuse me if I say, then the 
>> grind starts, Your prime responsibility is wide adoption. So, you 
>> wish to get the widest range of implementions from most advanced 
>> commercial (yes, the aim may be to add this to al BS, Ocatga, and 
>> any ohers . Regardless, it is usually wise to get teh. Then you 
>> would get consensus for draft, resources, etc.
>>
>> talk to
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yves Piguet" 
>> <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
>> To: "Joe D Williams" <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>> Cc: "doug sanden" <highaspirations at hotmail.com>; "X3D Public"
>> <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Purpose of X3D
>>
>>
>> If I understand correctly, x3dom doesn't follow this path. Am I
>> correct? Is it because of the complexity and tediousness? What's 
>> the
>> feeling of people involved with X3D ISO standardization?
>>
>> My next question would be about the kinds of "proposals" I've made. 
>> I
>> guess they have zero chance of being considered. I had a vague hope
>> that the more modest yet useful ones might have triggered the 
>> interest
>> of someone who could have pushed them forward, but even that seems
>> crazily optimistic.
>>
>> Yves
>>
>> On 7 oct. 2016, at 16:37, Joe D Williams wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> So yes it is complex and tedious dealing with general and 
>>> technical
>>> inputs and comments from a wide range of interested parties over
>>> what might be a long period of time but that is also what keeps 
>>> the
>>> standard more or less immune to manipulation and false paths,
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org 




More information about the x3d-public mailing list